|
|
|
|
#1
07-30-2012, 04:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
"Its better to have a gun and not need it, then to need it and not have it." Don't think this is true? Well just look at Switzerland. And on a slightly different note: On a national level more people in the US then ever are legally buying guns and violent crime is reduced. And yet Chicago, the city with the strictest handgun laws in the US, now has one of the highest murder rates, and high crime too. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...up-crime-down/ |
|
#2
07-30-2012, 05:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
.
Could you verify how many people are killed by guns in Tokio or London where guns are prohibited and compare this with New York please? |
|
#3
07-30-2012, 05:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
---------------------------------------- Asus Sabertooth Z77 i7 3770k@4.3GHz+ Noctua NH D14 cooler EVGA GTX 780 Superclocked+ACX cooler. 8GB G.Skill ripjaws DDR3-1600 Crucial M4 128GB SSD+Crucial M4 256GB SSD Seagate 750GB HDD CH Fighterstick+CH Pro pedals+Saitek X45 Win7 64bit |
|
#4
07-30-2012, 06:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
As a Londoner not all gun crime is reported, they are rife on the streets here with "kiddie" gangs proudly showing them off.
Inner London housing estates tenants are prisoners at night too frightened to go out in the late hours, some areas are no go zones for any of the authorities, the same applies to certain cities and their sub cultural areas in the North of England. There's nothing to be celebrated with gun ownership, if you have to own one its for the purpose of killing someone no matter what the circumstances are. Here's a brave gang that paralysed a 5 year old recently. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...girl-paralysed Yea guns are cool huh..................... . Last edited by KG26_Alpha; 07-30-2012 at 06:39 PM. |
|
#5
07-30-2012, 06:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
so its bad when a citizen (read: slave) actually defends themselves...but when a cop has to "defend" themselves (and when cops defend themselves is usually at a NON-threat) is a good thing.... enjoy your nanny state where you cant even legitimately defend yourself with your fists with out being arrested... apparently people get arrested for showing a group of hoodlums intent on breaking in to your home a knife through a window.....cuz that actually happened over there...enjoy slavery... us "freedom loving" americans will never tolerate the crap that has occurred in your country....freedom is a dangerous endeavor...im sorry you can not handle freedom also if guns need to be made illegal...what should happen to cars...they kill MANY more people than guns.... |
|
#6
07-30-2012, 06:12 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Cheers |
|
#7
07-30-2012, 06:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I was literally lying on the floor laughing when I saw protesters say that Obamacare would be the start of communism in the US. Seriously, how delusional can peopel be? |
|
#8
07-30-2012, 06:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The reason gun control hype keeps popping up in civilized society is because the radicalized thinkers believe they can fix large segments of society. The media is nothing more or less than a business making money from advertisers. The media no longer gives a whit whether you have a gun or not. The media will talk about anything that keeps their advertisers spending money with them. Sadly, it is no longer about journalism or reporting ethics. The wrong people nowadays on the media, and they are the worst of the money grubbing lot imaginable. The best media is youtube or other internet sites. At least you can get to the truth eventually. If you watch the youtube with all the replays from mainstream media you just get fed the verbal lying goolash they want you to have. |
|
#9
07-31-2012, 08:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The fiction of "A Clockwork Orange" comes to life
__________________
Intel 980x | eVGA X58 FTW | Intel 180Gb 520 SSD x 2 | eVGA GTX 580 | Corsair Vengeance 1600 x 12Gb | Windows 7 Ultimate (SP1) 64 bit | Corsair 550D | Corsair HX 1000 PSU | Eaton 1500va UPS | Warthog HOTAS w/- Saitek rudders | Samsung PX2370 Monitor | Deathadder 3500 mouse | MS X6 Keyboard | TIR4 Stand alone Collector's Edition DCS Series Even duct tape can't fix stupid... but it can muffle the sound. |
|
#10
07-31-2012, 09:45 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Interesting article in the Economist, fitting to the topic at hand
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ.../07/gun-rights A Stinger for Antonin Jul 30th 2012, 17:05 by M.S. YESTERDAY on "Fox News Sunday", Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court justice, suggested that Americans may have a constitutional right to own and carry shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft missiles. CHRIS WALLACE: What about…a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute? SCALIA: We’ll see. Obviously the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried—it’s to keep and “bear”, so it doesn’t apply to cannons—but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided. WALLACE: How do you decide that if you’re a textualist? SCALIA: Very carefully. Most gun-rights advocates will probably downplay Mr Scalia's remarks, but I applaud them. In fact, I think the only thing amiss here is Mr Scalia's weirdly literalist approach to the word "bear"; the first amendment's reference to "freedom of speech and of the press", for example, is generally held to apply to non-verbal communications as well. Besides, even though you can't carry an M1 Abrams battle tank, that shouldn't necessarily preclude you from "keeping" one. More important, though, Mr Scalia seems to be one of the few people in the judiciary who may be favourably disposed towards letting Americans own the only kinds of weapons that actually make sense, under the dominant justification that advocates currently provide for the importance of gun rights: the right to defend yourself against the government. There are basically two ways of explaining why a right to own guns belongs in the Bill of Rights. The first is that it's part of the assumed natural right to self-defence against other citizens. The second, increasingly the main line of argument by gun-rights advocates, is that's it's necessary to prevent governments from arrogating tyrannical powers to themselves. Hence the ready response of a pro-gun-rights New York Times reader to an editorial calling for a compromise on gun control: The Second Amendment was not written to protect hunters and recreational shooters. It was written as a safeguard against a government that might become so centralized and so powerful that it would pose a threat to the freedom of the citizenry and the Republic. The same premise undergirds the gun-rights philosophy of the NRA ("America's First Freedom"), the Second Amendment Foundation ("the intent of [the second amendment] was to protect individuals from government powers"), and other gun-rights organisations. And indeed the Supreme Court relied on this interpretation of the second amendment's purpose in its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v Heller, which first established that the amendment guarantees an individual right to own guns. Many of the negotiating parties to the constitution, the court wrote, feared that the new federal government would act as Charles II had in 17th-century England, disarming rival militias so as to impose tyrannical rule. Hence the amendment's phrasing, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In his majority opinion, Mr Scalia glossed the amendment's prefatory clause thus: There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. (The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton).) Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny. We can see something of a problem begin to develop here. Reasons one and two above are obviously anachronistic: militias composed of private gun owners are no longer useful in repelling invasions or suppressing insurrections; they are more likely to be the insurrectors. And obviously, militias no longer render the US Army unnecessary. What about the third one? Is a country whose "able-bodied men" are "trained in arms and organized" (and, one assumes, have access to guns) "better able to resist tyranny?" Of course not. The idea that, in the modern world, a country full of people with private handguns, shotguns and AR-15s in their households is more likely to remain a liberal democracy than a country whose citizens lack such weapons is frankly ridiculous. Worldwide, there is no correlation whatsoever at the country level between private handgun ownership and liberal democracy. There are no cases of democratic countries in which nascent authoritarian governments were successfully resisted due to widespread gun ownership. When authoritarian governments come to power in democracies (which is rare), they do so at the ballot box or with heavy popular support; where juntas overthrow democratic governments, as in Greece, Brazil, Chile or Iran, popular gun ownership is irrelevant. Once authoritarian governments take power, if they decide they don't want citizens to own guns, they take them away, easily crushing any isolated attempts at resistance. When, on the other hand, authoritarian governments are overthrown in military uprisings (as opposed to peaceful revolutions, which are more common), the arms that defeat them come from defecting soldiers or outside aid. Widespread gun ownership among the common folk may conceivably have been an important obstacle to centralised government control in 17th-century Britain, just emerging from feudalism; but since the universalisation of the modern nation-state in the 19th century, the degree of force that governments can bring to bear has overwhelmed any conceivable popular defence of localised rights and privileges by companies of yeoman musketeers. To stack up against police, the National Guard or the US Army, private gun enthusiasts would, at a minimum, have to be packing an arsenal that would be illegal in any state in the union, even Arizona. Indeed, lower in his opinion, Mr Scalia recognises this problem. It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right. Because...why? Mr Scalia's claim here is that modern technological developments have rendered the second amendment meaningless with regard to its original intent, but that we have to continue enforcing it unchanged, regardless. Perhaps at some level the implicit cognitive dissonance here disturbs him, and this is why he is now considering whether citizens do have a right to keep and bear arms that might actually give the US military pause, such as surface-to-air missiles that could take out American helicopters and fighter-bombers—plus maybe land mines, shoulder-launched anti-tank missiles, or perhaps just IEDs, which had considerable success in crippling light mechanised infantry in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Surely that could deter some federal tyranny! This entire paradigm is absurd. Laws and regulations in America are determined by the actions of the legislature, the executive and the courts, with the consent of the voters; the level of gun ownership has nothing to do with anything. When congressmen debate liberty-related measures such as the health-insurance mandate or net neutrality, they don't worry about getting shot; they worry about getting re-elected. Once laws and regulations are in place, the government does not hesitate to enforce them because it is worried about resistance by gun-owning citizens. Widespread gun ownership by private citizens will no more deter the US government from enforcing the Endangered Species Act against property owners than widespread gun ownership by drug dealers has deterred the government from enforcing the Controlled Substances Act. Nor should it. If anything, widespread gun ownership forces the government to become more repressive and more invasive in its efforts to fight crime and prevent insurrection. This is the kind of vicious dialectic one sees in countries like Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq and Burma, where dispersed gun ownership among rival ethnic groups leads to a see-saw with brutal dictatorial regimes, who see repression as the only means to keep the state from disintegrating. Nonetheless, I applaud Mr Scalia for doing his part to make this aspect of the gun-rights debate clearer. If the purpose of the second amendment is to enable citizens to resist the government, then the entire regime of current gun restrictions needs to be overturned: citizens need to be able to buy fully automatic assault rifles, rocket launchers, military-grade explosives, remote detonators, armoured vehicles with mounted artillery, surface-to-air missiles, light bombers, armed drones, everything. If some citizens want to keep and bear arms in order to take on the power of the federal government, that's what it's going to take. And should those citizens decide to fully exercise such rights, then their second-amendment freedom will become the freedom to be attacked and crushed by the police and the US military, on behalf of those of us who support the integrity of the American government we have elected and the enforcement of its laws.
__________________
Cheers |
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
